On Wed, 4 Sep 2002, Ian Horrocks wrote:
>
> On September 1, Jim Hendler writes:
> > As Mike Dean mentioned a few weeks back, we have released the first
> > real langauge-based working drafts of the OWL langauge - successor to
> > DAML+OIL. We could use some feedback as to whether we are going in
> > the right direction. The document
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
> > is a short summary of the language and will show what has changed so
> > far from DAML+OIL. We would welcome feedback on the public mailing
> > list (see below) if you have issues with any of changes or, in fact,
> > if you think these changes are positive -- i.e. just a "this looks
> > good" would be useful feedback
> > We would particularly like feedback as to whether the naming of a
> > subset (Owl Lite in these documents) is a good or bad idea.
> > In addition, there are some who feel that stopping at OWL Lite would
> > be a good idea (i.e. come out with a simpler version w/less
> > inferential power, but easier to implement) - we need feedback on
> > this as well
>
> Jim,
>
> I am really rather amazed to read the last sentence. The stated
> purpose of OWL Lite was to provide an easy entry for tool builders,
> and not an alternative to or replacement for the full language.
>
> If members of the WG believe that we should "stop at OWL Lite", then
> they should declare themselves and open an issue in the normal
> way. Currently, I see no such issue, and am not aware of such a
> suggestion even having been (openly) discussed.
>
> Ian
I didn't read Jim's "there are some who feel" as referring only to the
views of WG members. I've heard (largely in f2f discussions) this concern
a number of times, and was glad to see Jim's request that folk with such
worries put their concerns on the record. Perhaps his last sentence is
less shocking read in this light?
Dan
--
mailto:danbri@w3.orghttp://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/